Mother and Teen Daughter Caught Smuggling Money!

[Hermit]

It's not illegal to carry that much or more cash or valuables; it's illegal not to declare it to Customs.

Coito objects to just that on the grounds that carrying any amount of cash is not in itself a criminal act. He is right with that, but I agree that the legal obligation to declare amounts of cash carried above a certain arbitrarily determined threshold is justified for the same reason that exceeding the arbitrarily determined speed limits on roads can be a criminal offence even if no laws other than those pertaining to speed limits have been broken in the process.

the speed limit is not "arbitrary."

Actually it is. At least in Australia, and I'm sure everywhere else. The evidence of the arbitrariness is that speed limits keep changing from their arbitrary starting point. When horseless carriages first appeared, they were not deemed to travel at a safe speed in some jurisditions unless preceded by a man walking in front of each and waving a red flag. In following decades the general speed limit in residential streets was 35mph. It was never explained why it wasn't 30 or 40mph. When we went decimal, this limit was 60kmph, which amounts to much the same thing. Fair enough, but about 15 years ago the various state governments decided that the general speed limit of 60kmph applying to residential streets was not safe after all, and legislated it down to 50. Why not 40? It definitely is safer, isn't it?

Additionally, we now have special school zones. I see the point of speed limits in areas where school children are dropped off and picked up being dropped even further, yes, but the laws of at least of the three states I am familiar with differ very much in their implementation. In NSW, the limit is 40kmph at stipulated times in city areas, whereas in SA it is 25 whenever children are in the vicinity.

I made the speed limit analogy precisely because the crime committed is that of breaching a law - be it exceeding the speed limit or not declaring the carrying of amounts exceeding 10,000 dollars when travelling overseas. In the first instance you don't seem to object. If you want to be consequent, either both "Officer, so I broke the disclosure rule, but I am not carrying this amount of cash to evade taxes, conduct a drug deal or finance terrorism. " and "Officer, I was driving to conditions" should be acceptable (in which case blanket speeding laws as well as laws about cash carried ought to be axed) - or neither. (Come to think of it, that applies to blood alcohol levels as well, the levels at which they become illegal to drive with have also been arbitrarily changed. Oh and what is your stance on laws regarding statutory rape?)

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok, they can pull you over for not indicating, but there's no requirement on them to ask for your license. Only if they are going to give you a ticket, I presume. So the point remains that they can ask you for your license (under certain circumstances). How is that different to requiring someone to prove that they don't have cash stuffed in their undies at the airport?

sigh.... providing identification is not requiring someone to disclose anything besides their identity.

Of course it is. If you don't have your identification on you, it is an offence. Therefore you are incriminating yourself by complying with the copper's request.

No. Yes, but it's an offense because driving without a license is an offense.

So? You are still incriminating yourself by complying with his request. Why is it ok to incriminate yourself in this case, but not in other cases?

Providing identification is not "incriminating." Except perhaps under Anglo-Saxon common law principles of "outlawry" where the person himself is declared outside the law.

Either way, I still don't see how that is necessarily incriminating oneself.

Incrimination is not the only manner in which it is improper. Requiring me to disclose that I have a legal item on me, and why, is itself an improper requirement because I am not under suspicion. They should, like in all other circumstances, need reasonable suspicion before requiring me to do that.

So now you are shifting the goalposts? The reason why they ask you to disclose it is as has been said to you by a number of people in this thread so far. The chances of illegal activity being involved in carrying large sums of cash abroad is arguably high enough to warrant asking people to prove that they don't have bundles of undocumented cash on them.

Another logical fallacy you don't understand.

Lol. Says the guy who can't understand how he clearly strawmanned my argument earlier.

Dude - you don't know what a strawman is, or "moving the goalposts." I presented neither kind of logical fallacy.

No, I haven't shifted the goal posts. I've identified more than one reason that these questions ought to be found to be unlawful or unconstitutional.

So? We were talking about the issue of self-incrimination. That's what my post was about that you were responding too. You didn't respond to that point. Instead you changed focus to some other point. I.e. shifted the goalposts.

Self-incrimination was one of the things we were talking about. It wasn't the only thing. But, it is what you are fixated on, and you suggest that anything else I brought up is somehow improperly raised. I responded to every point you've made. You just keep asking the same dumb questions over and over again.

You're the one solely focusing on self-incrimination.

I'm not solely focussing on it; something you would realise if you'd read the thread. But regardless, that was the point I was interested in pursuing with you. A point that you were happy to discuss with me until you couldn't answer my point any more.

I answered it. But, feel free to restate the question now, and I'll answer it again.

We don't shift the burden of proof to the defendant here -- if the cash is ill-gotten, it's up to the government to prove it.

How is that relevant to the process of declaring cash when leaving the country?

Because the reason they are asking for the declaration is to find "ill gotten" cash, and not merely cash. It isn't illegal to leave the country with cash. And, when you declare the money, they ask you to justify and explain where you got it from.

Cash is generally not documented. Who has "documentation" authenticating their cash? That's the whole point of cash. It's a fungible demand note.

Large sums can almost always be documented in some way. Tax returns, bank records, employment records, etc. Can you not understand the concept that carrying large sums of cash across borders is often associated with illegal activities?

That doesn't "document" the cash. That just provides information to suggest a source for the person's cash -- doesn't mean the cash came from that source, though. And, if such bank records are not available, they seize the cash, assuming it was dirty money, and the burden of proof falls upon the defendant to figure out how to prove to the State's satisfaction that the money was not ill-gotten.

Yes, I do know that large sums of cash are often associated with illegal activities -- not just moving across borders, but anywhere. The same goes for $60,000 in cash in someone's safe in their home. So, the same logic behind these declarations would apply to a general rule that anyone with large sums of cash on hand has to declare it periodically, and provide documentation that it is not ill-gotten.

All the answer to the question proves is that you have a chunk of cash on you. Whether that cash was legally or illegally gained is a separate investigation.

And, just like what is in my pockets is none of the cops' damn business, unless he has reasonable suspicion that I'm doing something wrong, it's none of their damn business what money I have on me.

As explained by a number of people already, it is their business. Societies are about a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. If there is a reasonable case to be made that society can be degraded by an action, then some of the individual's rights have to come second in that instance. That's how societies work.

That's one view of it. The same view can be used to justify any ridiculous rule the government imposes. But, thanks for stating the obvious, that societies are based on a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. The idea is that in a society where the burden of proof rests on the State in criminal matters, in a society where people have the right to remain silent, where they have a right to not testify against themselves, where they have no obligation to participate in the government's criminal investigations, where cash is legal, and where flying with cash is legal, it is offensive to that balance that the state would require you to disclose how much money you have on you and then seize it if you don't comply and prosecute you for a felony.

I agree that the seizing part is wrong. I'd be interested to hear their justification for that. Surely they must have one?

Yes -- they do have a justification -- she didn't disclose when asked. Done. That's why they have those laws - to make forfeitures easy. They don't have to prove the money is ill-gotten. They just have to show that someone lied or did not disclose.

But regarding the balance of individual rights vs societal concerns, I have no problem with the state getting you to declare how much cash you are carrying abroad, as the benefits in crime reduction would arguably outweigh the exceedingly mild inconvenience of declaring. And again, I don't agree it is self-incriminatory to state that you have cash on you. I could either rob a bank, or make a withdrawal, and then go to the airport to board a plane and declare my personal cash. That declaration says absolutely nothing about where the cash came from. That's a separate line of investigation.

You'd need to have some evidence that the declaration rule has reduced crime. Has it? How do you know? Why do you assume it?

It's not just the declaration - once you declare, they ask you to explain it, if it's a large sum of money.

And in a general sense, I just don't see the difference between incriminating oneself by answering a question, and incriminating oneself by failing to hand over a document.

One does not incriminate oneself by failing to hand over a document.

Of course they do. If they are required to carry it, and they don't hand it over, they can be fined for not carrying it.

Maybe you are missing the point that we're talking about testimonial self-incrimination, written or verbal words that the accused utters or writes.

I'm talking about the philosophical, i.e. moral, difference between the two situations. How many times do I need to make this point? If in both cases I incriminate myself, then what exactly is the non-self-incrimination law supposed to be protecting me against?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that self-incrimination doesn't refer to actions or identities. If your actions incriminate you, then that's fair in our system. It's the difference between being compelled to testify that you stole a car, and being compelled to hand over a stolen car in your possession. The former is privileged under the 5th Amendment self-incrimination principle, the latter is not. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Similar to you lack of understanding of logical fallacies, you don't seem to know what "philosophical" means. It doesn't mean moral or morality. I've explained to you the difference in legal philosophy, which privileges testimonial self-incrimination, so you don't have to tell on yourself.

Maybe you have a beef with the whole idea of allowing people not to testify against themselves. That's fine too. A lot of conservatives traditionally have had a major beef with that concept.

Further, self-incrimination is by definition a matter of making verbal or written statements. Failing to talk is not self-incrimination. The right is against testifying against oneself.

Yes I know that, but I'm asking what is the philosophical difference between the two? In both cases you are nicked if you act one way over the other way.

I've explained the difference. Self-incrimination applies to verbal or written utterances. IT doesn't apply to actions or forensics. Its' the difference between a cop custodially interrogating you and a cop drawing your blood to test for DUI. The former can involve self-incrimination, the latter does not, for obvious reasons.

I'm still not seeing it. What's the philosophical difference between verbally incriminating yourself, versus physically doing it (by handing over, or not, a physical document)?

The "philosophical" difference would depend on what philosophy you're talking about. Do you want me to educate you on the "positive law" philosophy, "natural law" philosophy? Legal realism? Legal interpretivism? It's up to you. We can argue all day about whether the distinction makes sense based on one or another legal philosophy, but the fact remains that it is an applicable distinction and has been an applicable distinction under English and American law for centuries.

Moreover -- the right that we all have is not MERELY -- not just -- against self-incrimination. It's about REMAINING SILENT. If we have the right to remain silent, then we ought not have to write down stuff or say stuff in response to law enforcement inquiry.

So what about court orders? Why don't you have the right to remain silent in a court (and I'm not just talking about as a defendant. I'm thinking more as a subpoenaed witness)?

You do have the right to remain silent in court, as a criminal defendant or suspect. That's what we're talking about.

A subpoenaed witness does have the right to remain silent if they're going to say something that may incriminate them. See Lois Lerner of the IRS' video above. You don't have the right to remain silent in response to a subpoena in general, and subpoenas are issued on behalf of courts, not cops or investigative or law enforcement agencies.

Yeah, but you just emphasised the right to remain silent in your above reply to me. So why did you emphasise in separation from the self-incrimination aspect, only to reconnect the two just now?

I did not reconnect the two. What the hell are you talking about? Have you had some counseling recently? Get some.

[pErvinalia]

You're an idiot. Do I really need to reply to some of the idiotic statements in this post?

[PsychoSerenity]

You're an idiot. Do I really need to reply to some of the idiotic statements in this post?

No, you need to stop replying. Because Coito won't. Ever. And I'd like this thread to stop appearing when I click "Your posts" now please.

[pErvinalia]

Oh fuckit, why not?

Of course it is. If you don't have your identification on you, it is an offence. Therefore you are incriminating yourself by complying with the copper's request.

No. Yes, but it's an offense because driving without a license is an offense.

So? You are still incriminating yourself by complying with his request. Why is it ok to incriminate yourself in this case, but not in other cases?

Providing identification is not "incriminating." Except perhaps under Anglo-Saxon common law principles of "outlawry" where the person himself is declared outside the law.

Are you incapable of following an exceedingly simple line of argumentation? How many times do I have to spell it out for you? If complying with a request to provide identification leads you to fail to provide identification (i.e. by saying "I don't have my driver's license on me"), then it is fucking incriminating. How the fuck can't you understand this simple point?!?

Another logical fallacy you don't understand.

Lol. Says the guy who can't understand how he clearly strawmanned my argument earlier.

Dude - you don't know what a strawman is, or "moving the goalposts." I presented neither kind of logical fallacy.

You wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on your hoary arse. You said I was "wrong", and your explanation for why I was allegedly wrong was based on a flawed (i.e. made up) interpretation of my argument. If you can't see how that is a strawman, then you have a fucking lot to learn about debating.

No, I haven't shifted the goal posts. I've identified more than one reason that these questions ought to be found to be unlawful or unconstitutional.

So? We were talking about the issue of self-incrimination. That's what my post was about that you were responding too. You didn't respond to that point. Instead you changed focus to some other point. I.e. shifted the goalposts.

Self-incrimination was one of the things we were talking about.

No, that was the EXACT point we were discussing.

It wasn't the only thing.

In that discussion thread, it was. Read the fucking quoted bits.

But, it is what you are fixated on,

You brought the fucking point up, twat.

and you suggest that anything else I brought up is somehow improperly raised.

No, I pointed out that when you don't address the point I was making and change the subject to another point, that IS moving the goalposts. It is absolutely the case. Even your addled mind should be able to see this exceedingly simple point.

I responded to every point you've made. You just keep asking the same dumb questions over and over again.

False. You didn't address the point I made. You change the subject point. i.e. You shifted the goalposts.

You're the one solely focusing on self-incrimination.

I'm not solely focussing on it; something you would realise if you'd read the thread. But regardless, that was the point I was interested in pursuing with you. A point that you were happy to discuss with me until you couldn't answer my point any more.

I answered it. But, feel free to restate the question now, and I'll answer it again.

Why are you incapable of having a debate where your asinine caricatures of the "left-wing" don't totally fuck the debate up?

We don't shift the burden of proof to the defendant here -- if the cash is ill-gotten, it's up to the government to prove it.

How is that relevant to the process of declaring cash when leaving the country?

Because the reason they are asking for the declaration is to find "ill gotten" cash, and not merely cash. It isn't illegal to leave the country with cash. And, when you declare the money, they ask you to justify and explain where you got it from.

You said it yourself: "It's up to the government to prove it". There's no self-incrimination by either answering or refusing to answer.

Yes, I do know that large sums of cash are often associated with illegal activities -- not just moving across borders, but anywhere. The same goes for $60,000 in cash in someone's safe in their home. So, the same logic behind these declarations would apply to a general rule that anyone with large sums of cash on hand has to declare it periodically, and provide documentation that it is not ill-gotten.

Nonsensical argument. The stakes are higher when foreign countries are involved. The border crossings are where a country can best control what is and isn't allowed in the country.

That's one view of it. The same view can be used to justify any ridiculous rule the government imposes. But, thanks for stating the obvious, that societies are based on a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. The idea is that in a society where the burden of proof rests on the State in criminal matters, in a society where people have the right to remain silent, where they have a right to not testify against themselves, where they have no obligation to participate in the government's criminal investigations, where cash is legal, and where flying with cash is legal, it is offensive to that balance that the state would require you to disclose how much money you have on you and then seize it if you don't comply and prosecute you for a felony.

I agree that the seizing part is wrong. I'd be interested to hear their justification for that. Surely they must have one?

Yes -- they do have a justification -- she didn't disclose when asked. Done. That's why they have those laws - to make forfeitures easy. They don't have to prove the money is ill-gotten. They just have to show that someone lied or did not disclose.

Is there a link to the specifics of this? I'm struggling to accept that in a place like the US the authorities could just confiscate someone's property indefinitely without a good legal justification for doing it. By that I mean, proof that criminal activity was taking place.

But regarding the balance of individual rights vs societal concerns, I have no problem with the state getting you to declare how much cash you are carrying abroad, as the benefits in crime reduction would arguably outweigh the exceedingly mild inconvenience of declaring. And again, I don't agree it is self-incriminatory to state that you have cash on you. I could either rob a bank, or make a withdrawal, and then go to the airport to board a plane and declare my personal cash. That declaration says absolutely nothing about where the cash came from. That's a separate line of investigation.

You'd need to have some evidence that the declaration rule has reduced crime. Has it? How do you know? Why do you assume it?

I don't know definitively that it has, but I think it's eminently reasonable that it would reduce crime. If there were no repercussions for taking large sums of undocumented cash out of the country, then surely more criminals would do it, right?

It's not just the declaration - once you declare, they ask you to explain it, if it's a large sum of money.

But the burden of proof is on them. If it's not illegal to take money out of the country, then they have to prove that you had some sort of illegal intent in doing it.

Maybe you are missing the point that we're talking about testimonial self-incrimination, written or verbal words that the accused utters or writes.

I'm talking about the philosophical, i.e. moral, difference between the two situations. How many times do I need to make this point? If in both cases I incriminate myself, then what exactly is the non-self-incrimination law supposed to be protecting me against?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that self-incrimination doesn't refer to actions or identities. If your actions incriminate you, then that's fair in our system.

You're an idiot. Apparently I'm going to have to make this point over and fucking over again. I don't give a fuck about "your system", in this particular instance. I'm talking about the justification for holding a position. i.e. I'm talking about something other than how the law stands as it is now. That's what I mean by "philosophical". How do you fucking explain the difference between two examples that both involve you incriminating yourself, without being a mental retard and repeatedly insisting "but it's the law"? I know it's the fucking law. I'm talking about justifications for the differential in law between two similar situations. Please don't make me explain this to you again. I might have to kill myself.

It's the difference between being compelled to testify that you stole a car, and being compelled to hand over a stolen car in your possession. The former is privileged under the 5th Amendment self-incrimination principle, the latter is not. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Because I'm not talking about the law as it stands, you dimwit.

Similar to you lack of understanding of logical fallacies, you don't seem to know what "philosophical" means.

I know exactly what it means, as explained above, just as I know exactly how you have committed a number of logical fallacies.

Maybe you have a beef with the whole idea of allowing people not to testify against themselves. That's fine too. A lot of conservatives traditionally have had a major beef with that concept.

God, that's almost funny.

I've explained the difference. Self-incrimination applies to verbal or written utterances. IT doesn't apply to actions or forensics. Its' the difference between a cop custodially interrogating you and a cop drawing your blood to test for DUI. The former can involve self-incrimination, the latter does not, for obvious reasons.

I'm still not seeing it. What's the philosophical difference between verbally incriminating yourself, versus physically doing it (by handing over, or not, a physical document)?

The "philosophical" difference would depend on what philosophy you're talking about. Do you want me to educate you on the "positive law" philosophy, "natural law" philosophy? Legal realism? Legal interpretivism? It's up to you.

If it involves you repeatedly missing exceedingly simple points, then no thanks.

We can argue all day about whether the distinction makes sense based on one or another legal philosophy, but the fact remains that it is an applicable distinction and has been an applicable distinction under English and American law for centuries.

yawn.

Moreover -- the right that we all have is not MERELY -- not just -- against self-incrimination. It's about REMAINING SILENT. If we have the right to remain silent, then we ought not have to write down stuff or say stuff in response to law enforcement inquiry.

So what about court orders? Why don't you have the right to remain silent in a court (and I'm not just talking about as a defendant. I'm thinking more as a subpoenaed witness)?

You do have the right to remain silent in court, as a criminal defendant or suspect. That's what we're talking about.

A subpoenaed witness does have the right to remain silent if they're going to say something that may incriminate them. See Lois Lerner of the IRS' video above. You don't have the right to remain silent in response to a subpoena in general, and subpoenas are issued on behalf of courts, not cops or investigative or law enforcement agencies.

Yeah, but you just emphasised the right to remain silent in your above reply to me. So why did you emphasise in separation from the self-incrimination aspect, only to reconnect the two just now?

I did not reconnect the two. What the hell are you talking about? Have you had some counseling recently? Get some.

You answered my question with "A subpoenaed witness does have the right to remain silent if they're going to say something that may incriminate them." Do you really need me to explain how you linked the right to remain silent with the concept of self-incrimination? Really?

[pErvinalia]

You're an idiot. Do I really need to reply to some of the idiotic statements in this post?

No, you need to stop replying. Because Coito won't. Ever. And I'd like this thread to stop appearing when I click "Your posts" now please.

Oops, too late.

[Warren Dew]

What about your registration papers? (I only ask this based on movie depictions of the US. There's no such thing as "registration papers" here. We have a registration sticker on our windscreens).

Police can ask for your vehicle registration when they can ask to see your license - when they have reasonable suspicion. Normally they can tell anyway by looking at your license plate expiration sticker; I think they used to task to check whether the car was stolen and the plate was switched. Nowadays, they can look up the license plate number in a database, so they don't need to ask even about switched plates.

[pErvinalia]

Just came across this in the media in Australia -

A court ruling has cast doubt on police powers to randomly pull over motorists.
Two African men were stopped by police in Ascot Vale last year.
One man was charged with assault when the situation escalated
A magistrate has now ruled the Road Safety Act does not give police the unfettered power to stop motorists without suspicion.
Magistrate Duncan Reynolds ruled "there is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details.

...

Stops for the purpose of random breath testing are not impacted by the court ruling.
"There is a specific statutory power for police to conduct stops for this purpose," Ms Hopkins said.
Victoria Police are considering their options, including whether to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-21/m ... 27/4772154

[Hermit]

Just came across this in the media in Australia -

A court ruling has cast doubt on police powers to randomly pull over motorists.
Two African men were stopped by police in Ascot Vale last year.
One man was charged with assault when the situation escalated
A magistrate has now ruled the Road Safety Act does not give police the unfettered power to stop motorists without suspicion.
Magistrate Duncan Reynolds ruled "there is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details.

...

Stops for the purpose of random breath testing are not impacted by the court ruling.
"There is a specific statutory power for police to conduct stops for this purpose," Ms Hopkins said.
Victoria Police are considering their options, including whether to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-21/m ... 27/4772154

So, stops for the purpose of random breath testing will become de rigueur.

[JimC]

Just came across this in the media in Australia -

A court ruling has cast doubt on police powers to randomly pull over motorists.
Two African men were stopped by police in Ascot Vale last year.
One man was charged with assault when the situation escalated
A magistrate has now ruled the Road Safety Act does not give police the unfettered power to stop motorists without suspicion.
Magistrate Duncan Reynolds ruled "there is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details.

...

Stops for the purpose of random breath testing are not impacted by the court ruling.
"There is a specific statutory power for police to conduct stops for this purpose," Ms Hopkins said.
Victoria Police are considering their options, including whether to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-21/m ... 27/4772154

So, stops for the purpose of random breath testing will become de rigueur.

They already are, and I have no problem with that...

The report was all about "driving while Black" - there has been a lot of tension between police and parts of the Somalian community...

Anyway, in the 70s, I remember being randomly stopped because I was a no-good, long-haired hippy...

[Coito ergo sum]

I have a big problem with "random" stops. It treats the people as if we're all suspects. The cops ought, in my view, have a good reason to meddle with a person. If they don't, they have no reason to suspect that person or block his or her way. Call me old fashioned.

[MrJonno]

I have a big problem with "random" stops. It treats the people as if we're all suspects. The cops ought, in my view, have a good reason to meddle with a person. If they don't, they have no reason to suspect that person or block his or her way. Call me old fashioned.

Driving a large lump on metal at speed, that's definitely a potential crash waiting to happen. No problems with random stops for that would be more concerned if you are just walking around.

I've been stopped at a train station under anti-terrorism laws before, it was definitely a bit annoying but its security versus safety and its always going to be balance

[Warren Dew]

I have a big problem with "random" stops. It treats the people as if we're all suspects. The cops ought, in my view, have a good reason to meddle with a person. If they don't, they have no reason to suspect that person or block his or her way. Call me old fashioned.

Guilty until proven innocent. It's the new world order!

[MrJonno]

I have a big problem with "random" stops. It treats the people as if we're all suspects. The cops ought, in my view, have a good reason to meddle with a person. If they don't, they have no reason to suspect that person or block his or her way. Call me old fashioned.

Guilty until proven innocent. It's the new world order!

Suspicious until proven otherwise is very different to guilty until proven innocent

[Sean Hayden]

Sure, but it can be a difference that makes no difference.